Why is that everytime a movie or video game want a planet to look exotic and different...

It's primarily artistic.
I give you an over-the-pole shot of Saturn, looking straight down on the plane of the moons and the rings.
You can print it and measure the visual angle Saturn or the rings would subtend from any of the moons. I've done it for Enceladus to show what I mean.
Saturn would just sprawl across the sky.
The rings wouldn't be terribly spectacular. They're even wider but all but the most distant satellites orbit within a degree or so of the ring-plane. You'd just see a thin line. But they'd cast a large shadow across the planet most of the Saturnian year.

Most of the moons in the System would look pretty insignificant from the surface of their primaries. Charon is fairly large and close to Pluto, but the lighting is bad.

The triple-star pix is an artist's conception. No way NASA could take an actual photo of the scene.

For an observer on Io, the closest large moon to the planet, Jupiter's apparent diameter would be about 20° (38 times the visible diameter of the Moon, covering 1% of Io's sky). An observer on Metis, the innermost moon, would see Jupiter's apparent diameter increased to 68° (130 times the visible diameter of the Moon, covering 18% of Metis's sky). A "full Jupiter" over Metis shines with about 4% of the Sun's brightness (light on Earth from a full moon is 400 thousand times dimmer than sunlight).

Because the inner moons of Jupiter are in synchronous rotation around Jupiter, the planet always appears in nearly the same spot in their skies (Jupiter would wiggle a bit because of the non-zero eccentricities). Observers on the sides of the Galilean satellites facing away from the planet would never see Jupiter, for instance.

Can something like this be created by a Type II or Type III Civilization?
lucas.bourneuf.net/blog/uess.html

In the skies of Saturn's inner moons, Saturn is an enormous object. For instance, Saturn seen from Pan has an apparent diameter of ~50°, 104 times larger than our Moon and occupying 11% of Pan's sky. Because Pan orbits along the Encke division within Saturn's rings, they are visible from anywhere on Pan, even on its side facing away from Saturn.

>100 times bigger than the moon
>primarily artistic

esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2008/07/Phobos2

Colored photo.
planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2016/20161006-fun-with-mom-mcc.html

But extremely small

Pic from an orbiting probe.
Phobos is 10 km across and about 6000 km above the surface of Mars. That makes it a 10th of a degree across vs. half a degree for our own moon. Phobos is one of the least reflective bodies in the Solar System, with an albedo of just 0.071.
If it didn't move so quickly, you'd have a problem finding it in the Martian sky.

Oh thanks I didn't know. But it's still really smaller than how we represent it in sf right ? What would it takes for a planet or a moon to look that big in the sky ? Would a gas giant look like that from one of it's moon ? Is that common to have many that many moons and we are the exception with our only moon ?

Thank you that was really interesting. The ring-thing sounds pretty cool. I knew it was an artist's conception, like every photo of exoplanet we have but I wondered if it was realistic

Wow that's great. I knew that would be something interesting to ask. Thank you

19 billion dollars a year for shitty cgi, "composite images" and wide angle footage is plenty user...they definitely don't need more money.

Realism killed video games

I said Saturn would be spectacular.
But the rings are incredibly thin.
This is as close as I could get to a shot from Pan. It's currently on the nightside of Saturn, so there wouldn't be much to see.
If you zoom in, you can see the ring-planel lower left to upper right. It just looks like a scratch.
I've turned off the orbital-tracks of the moons so they wouldn't obscure the view.

here moon from nasa

Don't derail this with your conspiracy bullshit

Here's a top down view from Pan.

...

Can't be.
Pan orbits within the Encke Gap.
Neither than angle nor the distance is right.

I have the newer version

Can't be.
Pan orbits within the Encke Gap.
Neither the angle nor the distance is right.

Saturn from Mimas should look spectacular.

Here's how Jupiter looks from Europa, one of its moons.

My post deleted, then reposted to correct spelling.

Newer version of what?

Yes, a Type III could do alot more too

Ha!
I never tried using that program with the viewpoint off Earth.
It still inserts a dummy landscape?

Minus the atmosphere, grass and trees of course.

Newer version of Celestia

Yeah but you can change the landscape in the settings. You can add your own if you want if you take a 360° image of your backyard for example.

Saturn from Mimas.
As usual, rings nearly invisible.
Field-of-view 35 degrees, so about what you'd see standing there without turning your head.

I'll have to update mine.
Thanks.

>alien world
>fantastical view
>1g - always

Just be glad MOST alien worlds don't have floating mountains.

what program is that? i want to play with it

>Why is that everytime a movie or video game want a planet to look exotic and different, they put one or many moons in the sky, especially during daytime ?
It saves time on story-telling for the scriptwriter to come up with a subtle way to tell the audience, through dialogue, exposition at the beginning or whatever "the story you are watching does not take place on Earth."

Stellarium. One of the best planetrium softwares out there and the best part is that it's free.

pic related is Jupiter viewed from the surface of Io in Space Engine

I tried that in Stellarium and it seems that Io is tidal locked to Jupiter since it's always in the same spot in the sky. Try fasting forward time.

What are you running?
I've got 1.6.1 for Windows and that seems to be the latest.
Where did you find more recent?

All (proper) moons are tidally locked, it's inevitable given enough time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(moon)
Not (proper)?
3:4 resonance with Titan keeps it going.

Thanks a lot my jewish friend

glorified asteroid

looks fake af

Of course it's fake. I'm not Elon Musk and can't afford my own spacecraft.
Recommend better software?

Interested in Universe Sandbox -- but half the reviews say it's terrific and the other half say it's malware.
Anyone try it? If positive experience, please list site.

>Would a gas giant look very big in the sky of one of its moon ?

Well, Jupiter would look about 25 bigger from Europa than the Moon does from Earth. Reasonably accurate illustration attached.

I just realised that most of saturn's moons have a shitty view of the rings. They'll all be looking at them edge on. That sucks.

That's what I've been trying to emphasize.
Inclination of orbit to equator of primary varies between 1.5 and 0 degrees for all moons EXCEPT Iapetus (14.7) and Phoebe (174.7)

Titan is 0.3 degrees and the rings would be invisible even if you could see the sky through the smog.

The Gallilean satellites all have zero inclination, but Jupiter's ring is nothing to write home about anyway.

But the gas giants themselves are worth the trip!

>I just realised that most of saturn's moons have a shitty view of the rings.
You didn't "just realize" that dude said it like 9 times already in the thread. And when you think about it, it's makes sense. Rings wouldn't form off the orbital plane. If you were going to build a space station out there though you would definitely have to put it on an incline. It would be like living in a manhattan penthouse but you never open the blinds.

>You didn't "just realize" that dude said it like 9 times already in the thread.

Oh I never read threads. I just glance at the pictures and guess what direction the discussion is going, and post my own input.

>Oh I never read threads. I just glance at the pictures

That's the spirit!

>I thought we had one of the biggest moon relative to our planet size, and it looks pretty small.
That wasn't always the case. The Moon was and is moving slowly away from the Earth.

This is a (sort of shitty, since the moon would not have looked like that) artists rendition of the Moon and Earth about 3 BYA.

No, MERCURY orbit.

Only if you were there for the view.
If so, you'd put it in an inclined orbit AND at a radius not occupied by any moons or moonlets. Otherwise, you're asking for trouble and an eventual collision.

If you aren't there for the view, you'd put the station in the equatorial plane. The only non-scenic reason for going to Saturn is to study the moons (or to land on them to pick up reaction mass) and that's easiest done from an equatorial orbit. Plane-changes are EXPENSIVE in terms of dV.